D&D 5E Please help me with the “one spell cast per round” rule

[Tormyr]

Nah, I think it is pretty clear that you can do the following on your turn.

Bonus action: healing word
Action: sacred flame
Action surge: flame strike
Reaction: shield

Until it is your turn again, you may not cast another reaction spell as you have already used your reaction for the round.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

And this is how it should be. The BA spellcasting rule is broken not because it stops what you posted, but that it allows this:

Action: flame strike
Action surge: flame strike
Reaction: shield

and allows this:

Bonus action: attack with a previously cast spiritual weapon
Action: sacred flame
Action surge: flame strike
Reaction: shield

while stopping this:

Bonus action: spiritual weapon
Action: sacred flame
Action surge: flame strike
Reaction: shield

and stopping this:

Bonus action: healing word
Reaction: shield

and stopping this:

Bonus action: healing word
Action surge: flame strike

If someone wants to burn 4 spell slots, their action surge, and their reaction, let them. They are all limited resources. The BA spellcasting rule limitation to a cantrip should have been limited to a spell you cast with your action (not including a second action from Action Surge).

 

[5ekyu]

So I got a reply from [MENTION=6720767]ArmandoDo[/MENTION]val who always seems to reply to these posts in place of the people I ask. (Not sure who he is but ok) He replied with links to other indirect questions that answer my questions.

Casting a bonus action spell precludes you from casting reaction spells... ouch

Also, If you use a bonus action spell all the catrip restriction does apply to a spell cast by using action surge... ouch again

So....all my examples were wrong due to bonus action spells and reaction spells.

Your best is 3, Action cast spell, Metamagic Quicken 1 action catrip as bonus action, action surge 1 action cantrip spell. ( or some shape of 1 action spell and 2 1 action cantrips).

thanks for the research and i am not all that surprised. it is not unlike to the way they treat sneak attacks "turn" limitation - it applies for the turn regardless of how other things can add more attack options but shift into someone else's turn and its a new ballgame.

i agree that the BA spel restriction seems an odd duck and i would have handled it by making sure no broken BA spells and 1A spell combos got into place, but it seems they wanted the BA spells to be very restrictive - almost an "overloading" thing.

As a GM if i really disliked that rule, i might consider allowing you to cast any BA spell as a 1A spell to provide an option for say using healing word as a baseline cure and still keep your reaction spells available on your turn. and keep action surge spells unlimited.

that way you eliminate some of the oddball combos without essentially making quicken even more powerful. (it really feels to me like the BA restriction was aimed at quicken spells more than the usual BA spells.)

 

[5ekyu]

And this is how it should be. The BA spellcasting rule is broken not because it stops what you posted, but that it allows this:

Action: flame strike
Action surge: flame strike
Reaction: shield

and allows this:

Bonus action: attack with a previously cast spiritual weapon
Action: sacred flame
Action surge: flame strike
Reaction: shield

while stopping this:

Bonus action: spiritual weapon
Action: sacred flame
Action surge: flame strike
Reaction: shield

and stopping this:

Bonus action: healing word
Reaction: shield

and stopping this:

Bonus action: healing word
Action surge: flame strike

If someone wants to burn 4 spell slots, their action surge, and their reaction, let them. They are all limited resources. The BA spellcasting rule limitation to a cantrip should have been limited to a spell you cast with your action (not including a second action from Action Surge).

i personally would disagree with your inclusion of the "contiue spiritual weapon and casting spiritual weapon as a sign of conflicts. the difference between casting an ongoing effect and just continuing it is a big part of the balance of those spells IMO.

But again, a house rule to allow a BA spell to be cast as a 1A spell seems to solve most of the conflicts without say inadvertently (or intentionally) empowering quicken spells even further or escalating the spell cast rates.

As for "allow them to burn thru..." kinds of arguments... sorry but to my way of thinking the amount that you can expend in a short time (nove value is a big part of balance. So i can get various restrictions in place to rein in those totals beyond the larger "resource management" level.

i mean lets face it "They are all limited resources. " on its own could be used to "support" allow you to burn all you HD as a reaction for healing even in combat" or "allow you to cast all your spells slots at once." or any number of other kitchen sink type effects if we just decide the overall resource pool is a sufficient limiting element in and of itself. Obviously, your suggestion does not go as far as those so you *are* assuming other limitations are needed.

again, my belief is that a simple house rule allowing BA spells to be cast as 1A spells solves most of the conflicts. it makes using your BA slot for spells a restrictive thing but you never are required to use it that way. Ba spells become more flexible but limiting if you use them in their "speedy" form.

But there are obviously other possibilities for Gms who want different things. You could add "or reaction" to the "cantrip with a casting time of 1 action"

lots of possibilities.

 

[Tormyr]

i personally would disagree with your inclusion of the "contiue spiritual weapon and casting spiritual weapon as a sign of conflicts. the difference between casting an ongoing effect and just continuing it is a big part of the balance of those spells IMO.

But again, a house rule to allow a BA spell to be cast as a 1A spell seems to solve most of the conflicts without say inadvertently (or intentionally) empowering quicken spells even further or escalating the spell cast rates.

As for "allow them to burn thru..." kinds of arguments... sorry but to my way of thinking the amount that you can expend in a short time (nove value is a big part of balance. So i can get various restrictions in place to rein in those totals beyond the larger "resource management" level.

i mean lets face it "They are all limited resources. " on its own could be used to "support" allow you to burn all you HD as a reaction for healing even in combat" or "allow you to cast all your spells slots at once." or any number of other kitchen sink type effects if we just decide the overall resource pool is a sufficient limiting element in and of itself. Obviously, your suggestion does not go as far as those so you *are* assuming other limitations are needed.

again, my belief is that a simple house rule allowing BA spells to be cast as 1A spells solves most of the conflicts. it makes using your BA slot for spells a restrictive thing but you never are required to use it that way. Ba spells become more flexible but limiting if you use them in their "speedy" form.

But there are obviously other possibilities for Gms who want different things. You could add "or reaction" to the "cantrip with a casting time of 1 action"

lots of possibilities.

I do not mind that bonus action spells are bonus actions and the limitation of only being able to cast a cantrip with your action. The limited resources are an ancillary part of the argument, and one might not feel that casting vs maintaining something like spiritual weapon is a good comparison even though the end result is the same (and the creature moves it 20 feet as part of maintaining the spell). The part that annoys me, and which everyone seems to dance around is that "an especially swift" spell cast with a bonus action makes it harder to cast other spells than one cast with an action. You can do this:

Bonus action: Dash
Action: Meteor Swarm
Reaction: shield

but not this:

Bonus action: Healing Word
Action: Dash
Reaction: shield

or, you can do this

Bonus action: Dash
Action: Dimension Door
Reaction: shield

but not this:

Bonus action: Misty Step
Action: Dash
Reaction: shield

These examples strip the argument down to its basics: a faster spell makes it impossible to use a reaction spell. Likewise, with Action Surge, you can do this:

Bonus action: Dash
Action: Meteor Swarm
Action Surge: Fireball

but not this:

Bonus action: Misty Step
Action: Dash
Action Surge: Fireball

I do not think allowing BA spells to be cast as an action is the solution because of the situations above. Not all PC builds can do something other than cast spells with their bonus action, and they should not be penalized for that. I think fixing the interaction so casting a BA spell is not worse than casting a spell with a casting time of 1 action is the solution. A sorcerer / fighter multiclass should be allowed to:

Bonus action: Quickened Fireball
Action: Firebolt
Action surge: Fireball
Reaction: shield

The Action Surge should be able to cast any spell with a casting time of 1 action. It makes no sense that a high-level fighter can swing a maul another 4 times with Action Surge (and then do it again the next turn), and the sorcerer / fighter multiclass can use Action Surge to cast a fireball...unless they cast a bonus action spell.

I like bonus action spells. I like the limitation of using a cantrip for the associated action. I do not like that using a bonus action instead of an action to cast a spell makes using spells cast with an action surge or reaction worse (or impossible).

All the arguments I have seen for the current limitation on action surge and reaction spells have been around, "that is how it is written," or, "you can always house rule it," vs, "this is why it makes sense," and ignore that casting a swifter spell makes casting other spells worse. That indicates to me that the rule was written poorly.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

If you think the rule is poor, then change it You don't need to try to convince everyone else that the rule is broken to get rid of it in your own game.

 

[Rossbert]

Are there edge cases that are really awkward? Absolutely. But I think the alternative to achieve the limitation on crazy spell chains that they wanted would probably have been more awkward and clunky and probably not worth it given the general rarity of using reactions on your own turn.

 

[5ekyu]

I do not mind that bonus action spells are bonus actions and the limitation of only being able to cast a cantrip with your action. The limited resources are an ancillary part of the argument, and one might not feel that casting vs maintaining something like spiritual weapon is a good comparison even though the end result is the same (and the creature moves it 20 feet as part of maintaining the spell). The part that annoys me, and which everyone seems to dance around is that "an especially swift" spell cast with a bonus action makes it harder to cast other spells than one cast with an action. You can do this:

Bonus action: Dash
Action: Meteor Swarm
Reaction: shield

but not this:

Bonus action: Healing Word
Action: Dash
Reaction: shield

or, you can do this

Bonus action: Dash
Action: Dimension Door
Reaction: shield

but not this:

Bonus action: Misty Step
Action: Dash
Reaction: shield

These examples strip the argument down to its basics: a faster spell makes it impossible to use a reaction spell. Likewise, with Action Surge, you can do this:

Bonus action: Dash
Action: Meteor Swarm
Action Surge: Fireball

but not this:

Bonus action: Misty Step
Action: Dash
Action Surge: Fireball

I do not think allowing BA spells to be cast as an action is the solution because of the situations above. Not all PC builds can do something other than cast spells with their bonus action, and they should not be penalized for that. I think fixing the interaction so casting a BA spell is not worse than casting a spell with a casting time of 1 action is the solution. A sorcerer / fighter multiclass should be allowed to:

Bonus action: Quickened Fireball
Action: Firebolt
Action surge: Fireball
Reaction: shield

The Action Surge should be able to cast any spell with a casting time of 1 action. It makes no sense that a high-level fighter can swing a maul another 4 times with Action Surge (and then do it again the next turn), and the sorcerer / fighter multiclass can use Action Surge to cast a fireball...unless they cast a bonus action spell.

I like bonus action spells. I like the limitation of using a cantrip for the associated action. I do not like that using a bonus action instead of an action to cast a spell makes using spells cast with an action surge or reaction worse (or impossible).

All the arguments I have seen for the current limitation on action surge and reaction spells have been around, "that is how it is written," or, "you can always house rule it," vs, "this is why it makes sense," and ignore that casting a swifter spell makes casting other spells worse. That indicates to me that the rule was written poorly.

regarding the bold - the key is this... how long does it take to cast a bonus action spell vs how long is a bonus action.

you are drawing the conclusion (it seems" that a bonus action spell fills the bonus action timeframe - which kinda makes the limitation on other spells AT ALL seem inconsistent.

But what if instead the timing is more likel this -
Action spell = 10 ticks
Action cantrip = 8 ticks
Bonus action = 6 ticks
Bonus action spell = 8 ticks

if one views it this way the limitation makes sense in its most basic form. Action surge introduces more problems in general.

But the rules are rife with bonus actions not being as robust as normal actions.

a 5th level fighter taking an attack action gets two attacks but when he uses his bonus action to attack he gets only the one.

So bonus actions not being as good seems OK and in this case they choose to reflect that by saying (essentially) "using a bonus action to cast a spell eats a little bit of your action as far as spell casting goes."

Obviously there are other rationales both in game and out of game that can be applied... and a Gm is free to use whatever rationale to make his own house rules.

I myself will not be making a change that allows quicken plus full spell to go off as a matter of course.

 

[5ekyu]

Are there edge cases that are really awkward? Absolutely. But I think the alternative to achieve the limitation on crazy spell chains that they wanted would probably have been more awkward and clunky and probably not worth it given the general rarity of using reactions on your own turn.

agree...

 

[Tormyr]

regarding the bold - the key is this... how long does it take to cast a bonus action spell vs how long is a bonus action.

you are drawing the conclusion (it seems" that a bonus action spell fills the bonus action timeframe - which kinda makes the limitation on other spells AT ALL seem inconsistent.

But what if instead the timing is more likel this -
Action spell = 10 ticks
Action cantrip = 8 ticks
Bonus action = 6 ticks
Bonus action spell = 8 ticks

if one views it this way the limitation makes sense in its most basic form. Action surge introduces more problems in general.

But the rules are rife with bonus actions not being as robust as normal actions.

a 5th level fighter taking an attack action gets two attacks but when he uses his bonus action to attack he gets only the one.

So bonus actions not being as good seems OK and in this case they choose to reflect that by saying (essentially) "using a bonus action to cast a spell eats a little bit of your action as far as spell casting goes."

Obviously there are other rationales both in game and out of game that can be applied... and a Gm is free to use whatever rationale to make his own house rules.

I myself will not be making a change that allows quicken plus full spell to go off as a matter of course.

Unfortunately, the only reference to time that we get is that a bonus action spell takes the same amount of time as any other bonus action, but, ignoring the fact that there is no reference to ticks and no reference as to whether these are good or correct values, and that there is no reference to how long an action is, this is okay:

Bonus action: Dash 6 ticks
Action: Meteor Swarm 10 ticks
Reaction: Shield
Total: 16 ticks + Reaction

but not this:

Bonus action: Healing Word 8 ticks
Action: Dash 8 ticks
Reaction: Shield
Total: 16 ticks + Reaction

So with two turns that take the same amount of an imaginary unit of time, restricting reactions still does not fit. The thing is, these ticks are made up, and they might be able to be adjusted in some way that makes the combination of bonus action spell with other stuff take longer. However, it is a made-up explanation which does not answer why this works:

Bonus action: Dash
Action: Meteor Swarm
Reaction: Shield

but not this:

Bonus action: Healing Word
Action: Dash
Reaction: Shield

Someone can call meteors from the sky, run, and shield themselves but not heal someone at a distance, run, and shield themselves. They can even heal someone more by touching them (cure wounds), run, and shield themselves. The only difference is that one of these uses a spell with a casting time of a bonus action. The misty step vs dimension door is another great example. I can teleport much farther (or the same distance!) with dimension door and still be able to use a reaction.

So, using what is actually in the books (and play experience by the rules), is there actually a good reason to exclude reactions from a turn that had a bonus action spell (or vice versa)?

Additionally, is there a good reason why an eldritch knight can cast 2 fireballs using Action Surge but cannot cast misty step and then a fireball with Action Surge?

 

[Tormyr]

If you think the rule is poor, then change it You don't need to try to convince everyone else that the rule is broken to get rid of it in your own game.

You are right, I can always change it and have done so in my game, but that does not mean that my interpretation is more correct. I have gotten into several long, very valuable (to me), conversations over the years on this message board, and in the threads I hold most valuable, my opinion was changed. Other times my opinion was not changed, but I still got to hear the various alternate points of view.

The point for me is not "to win." Rather, I want to learn and refine my knowledge and understanding of the mechanics of the game. In this case I have specifically asked for an explanation as to why changing the casting time on a spell when everything else in the turn is the same should exclude reactions or nerf action surge spells. In the last paragraph I mentioned that just saying, "you can always house rule it," does not really help.